Skip to main content
AI Choice Engine

Model comparison

Claude Haiku 5.5 vs DeepSeek V3.1

Anthropic against DeepSeek, compared on context, price, and attributed benchmark results.

Claude Haiku 5.5: profile checked October 25, 2026DeepSeek V3.1: profile checked October 25, 2026Individual provider fields may changeEvidence confidence: Insufficient data — see receipts below

Anthropic

Claude Haiku 5.5

Budget

vs

DeepSeek

DeepSeek V3.1

Budget · Open weights

AI model capability comparison
SpecificationClaude Haiku 5.5DeepSeek V3.1
ProviderAnthropicDeepSeek
TierBudgetBudget
Context windowWinner: 1M128K
Max output128KNot verifiedUnverified
Input / 1M tokens$0.10Not verifiedUnverified
Output / 1M tokens$0.50Not verifiedUnverified
WeightsNot verifiedUnverifiedOpen
ParametersNot verifiedUnverified671B total / 37B active (MoE)
Reasoning levelsNot verifiedUnverifiedNot verifiedUnverified
Modalitiestext, imagetext
LicenseNot verifiedUnverifiedMIT
API model idclaude-haiku-5-5Not verifiedUnverified
ReleasedOctober 7, 2026August 21, 2025

Dates beside benchmark scores refer to the linked source’s publication or capture date unless that source explicitly states when it measured the result. A shared URL alone does not establish comparable runs; unverified setups are marked. Prices are USD per million tokens at standard rates, excluding batch and caching discounts. Values we could not confirm from the provider are shown as “Not verified” rather than estimated.

Pricing tiers

Claude Haiku 5.5: Base rates apply to prompts up to 100,000 tokens. Above 100,000 tokens, input is $0.50 and output $2.50 per MTok. Cache reads are $0.01/$0.05; 5-minute writes $0.125/$0.625 and 1-hour writes $0.20/$1 for short/long prompts. Batch input/output receives a 50% discount. Standard output is 128K; 300K Batch output requires the documented beta header. Adaptive thinking defaults to medium effort.

DeepSeek V3.1: No current first-party API or verified third-party tariff. deepseek-chat moved to V3.1-Terminus on September 22, 2025; that alias later retired July 24, 2026. MIT weights remain for self-hosting or separately priced hosts. The original checkpoint's hard output cap and selectable hosted effort menu remain unverified. Current Flash/Pro API prices do not price the original V3.1 checkpoint.

BudgetRecord checked October 25, 2026

Claude Haiku 5.5

Anthropic positions Haiku 5.5 for high-volume classification, extraction, routing and subagent tasks, with adaptive thinking and a 1M-token context window.

Best for

  • Classification and extraction
  • Routing
  • High-volume subagent tasks

Watch out

Prices increase fivefold above 100K prompt tokens. The newer tokenizer counts approximately 30% more tokens than Haiku 4.5 for the same text. Omit temperature, top_p and top_k. Thinking blocks are reusable only in the producing account or a linked account. Parameter count and weight availability remain unverified; no predecessor benchmark scores are inherited.

BudgetOpen weightsRecord checked October 25, 2026

DeepSeek V3.1

DeepSeek V3.1 is a legacy open-weight (MIT) 671B/37B MoE with a 128K context — superseded by V3.1-Terminus, V3.2 and then V4.

Best for

  • Cost-sensitive hosted agents
  • High-volume coding assist
  • Open-weight deployments

Watch out

Legacy: DeepSeek's first-party alias moved to V3.1-Terminus on September 22, 2025. Pin the exact V3.1 checkpoint; current hosted rates depend on provider. The original card supports thinking/non-thinking templates, not a verified selectable low/high/max menu. Self-hosting memory depends on quantization, offloading and hardware. The current first-party pricing table lists Flash-1017 and Pro-0813 only; absence of a third-party tariff here means unknown, not free.

When the cheaper one wins

One of these rows is missing a verified output price, so this page will not name a cheaper winner. Run the model picker against the actual job instead of guessing.

Run the model picker

Evidence confidence: Insufficient data

How strong and complete the evidence behind this comparison is — not a prediction of which model is better. Hard limitations apply: missing pricing; evidence too sparse.

  • Pricing incomplete — No verified token pricing for DeepSeek V3.1.
  • 2/5 core specs verified on both sides — Not published for at least one side: max output, parameter count, reasoning levels.
  • No directly aligned benchmark setup — No benchmark has matching cited sources, source dates, units, effort and recorded run details on both models.
  • Verified within the last 90 days — Older of the two catalog checks was 1 day ago.
  • Source citations incomplete — At least one side lacks the two-source citation set.

Source receipts

Each catalog figure was checked against the provider or an independent second source on the date shown.

Related comparisons

Diving deeper on one model? Claude Haiku 5.5 · DeepSeek V3.1

Common questions

Claude Haiku 5.5 vs DeepSeek V3.1

Answered from the verified figures on this page rather than general guidance.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Haiku 5.5 or DeepSeek V3.1?
Claude Haiku 5.5 accepts 1M tokens against 128K for DeepSeek V3.1. This only matters if you routinely send very long documents or large codebases.
Should I use Claude Haiku 5.5 or DeepSeek V3.1?
Both are classified in our budget tier; this editorial grouping does not imply equal capability. Claude Haiku 5.5 is a candidate for classification and extraction; DeepSeek V3.1 is a candidate for cost-sensitive hosted agents. Compare accuracy, tool reliability, latency and cost on representative tasks.

Next step

Choosing between them

The verified figures that separate this pair, computed from the catalog rather than restated boilerplate.

  • Context: Claude Haiku 5.5 takes 1M against 128K for DeepSeek V3.1 — only decisive if your prompts approach the smaller window.
Run the model pickerEstimate stack costAll model comparisons

Choosing a harness rather than a model — Cursor, Copilot, Claude Code, Windsurf, or Lovable? Compare agentic harnesses · Latest releases.